Minkowski Metric.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Infinite vs. instant
Next: It's a heatwave
From: Jerry on 20 Jun 2010 18:45 On Jun 20, 5:06 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 17:25:57 -0700 (PDT), Jerry > > <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >On Jun 19, 5:38 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:11:28 -0700 (PDT), Jerry > > >> <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> >On Jun 19, 4:53 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > > >> >> He cannot understand that a car's body represents an absolutely nonrotating > >> >> frame to its spinning flywheel. > > >> >...and CO-MOVING with the center of rotation of the flywheel!!! > > >> >AGAIN you inist that every rotating object drags along its own > >> >frame of absolutely non-rotating space so that the emission point > >> >of a light pulse remains fixed with respect to the center of > >> >rotation of the object!!! > > >> Hahahhahha! > >> It doesn't 'drag it along'. > > >Let us go back to the clock scenario. > > >Scenario A: > >----------------------------------------------------------------- > >A Sagnac turntable (NOT ILLUSTRATED) is mounted on the second > >hand of the clock. > > >The clock is moving from right to left at 0.1c > > > 12 > > 9 + 3 > > 6 > > > 12 > > 9 + 3* A light pulse * is emitted > > 6 > > > 12 > > 9 + 3X The emission point X remains in a fixed location > > 6 with respect to the clock, regardless of the > > turntable's rotation. > > > 12 > > 9 + 3X > > 6 > > >Scenario B: > >----------------------------------------------------------------- > >A Sagnac turntable (NOT ILLUSTRATED) is mounted on the second > >hand of the clock. > > >The clock is moving from left to right at 0.1c > > What the hell are you talking about? > WRT what is it supposd to be moving? With respect to YOU, the observer. Are you claiming that Sagnac devices can't be moved? Tell that to pilots with inertial guidance systems! > > 12 > > 9 + 3 > > 6 > > > 12 > > 9 + 3* A light pulse * is emitted > > 6 > > > 12 > > 9 + 3X The emission point X remains in a fixed > > 6 location with respect to the clock, > > regardless of the turntable's rotation. > > > 12 > > 9 + 3X > > 6 > > >----------------------------------------------------------------- > > >In other words, according to YOUR model, every Sagnac turntable > >drags along its own absolutely non-rotating frame. The emission > >point of a light pulse maintains its position with respect to the > >clock face. > > The emission point remains at rest in the inertial frame of the rotation axis . > What else could it do? Dear me, dear me... Assuming that YOUR strange concept of an "emission point" might -possibly- correspond to an "event", it COULD represent a unique position at a unique time in four-space. But it doesn't, does it? Not if you can drag it around the way that you do. I doubt highly that ANYBODY is capable of figuring out what your "emission point" corresponds to in terms of conventional physics. Only in your fantasy world does it have meaning. > >According to YOU, there are as many dragged frames in this world > >as there are Sagnac turntables. > > You're raving mad! Nope. You are. > >> Such a frame exists. That is what matters. > > >Absurd. > > Don't you know what an inertial frame is? I think you are still firmly stuck in > aetherland... Nope. It is YOUR model that drags frames around. > >> >You really don't see the total absurdity of such a claim? > > >> Then the SR argument here is also absurd: > > http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm > > >You have never understood SR, and you are unqualified to > >judge that mathpages article. > > The SR diagram is exactly the same as that of BaTh. > So every claim of yours applies to SR as well as BaTh. You're hopelessly lost in fantasyland. Jerry
From: Thomas Heger on 20 Jun 2010 22:14 Henry Wilson DSc schrieb: > On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 06:36:19 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg(a)web.de> wrote: > >> Henry Wilson DSc schrieb: >>> I would like a relativist to explain why the distance term ct is imaginary in >>> 4D 'spacetime'. >>> >>> Does this imply that the whole theory is just a figment of Einstein's >>> imagination? >>> >> I interpret multiplication with i as an angle of 90� rotation over a plane. >> Now imagine an axis of such a rotation, standing normal to this plane, >> than this is 90� up (or i). >> This is the relation of an inverse between the axis and the plane and a >> multiplication with i^-1. Now we call the plane spacelike and the axis >> timelike. >> The real space we find in between (between i and i ^-1), what is at 45�. >> This gets real numbers for distances and units of 1. >> Since the timeline carries the i, we had to multiply -i to get a one >> (with c=1). > > There is no justification for using imaginary numbers. > > Both x and ct are ordinary Euclidean distances. Therefore x^2 and (ct)^2 are > ordinary Euclidean areas. > Subtracting the latter from the smaller x^2 produces a negative area. > > Multiply that by a length and we have a negative volume. > > There is no justification to use Euclidean space! What do we mean with distance in space? Actually it is time traveled by light. So x=ct by definition. Since there is a time dependence, we have also an age dependence in our observations. That means, we see things, that do not exist anymore. Ok, but what is happening now? Well, we don't know. We know only about our direct vicinity and the rest we could only imagine, maybe we could calculate how things have evolved in the meantime, but we had to wait a very long time to see, what's really going on in space. With the term space we mean the spatial configuration of things we could see, like stars. But unfortunately the distances between objects are related to time, too, and we have a space, that doesn't represent their current relation. Look at this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2MsDogV4g4&feature=related You see a video trick, where time is delayed depending on hight. Any line is stored and put together in a different fashion. So the lady looks distorted. That is what we have in space, because the depth means age. To find out the current configuration of things, we could imagine, the connections between objects would be infinitely fast, but we can't see them, because they are not light. These connections could be the 'real thing', but imaginary and base on imaginary numbers. TH
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 21 Jun 2010 18:15 On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 15:45:54 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Jun 20, 5:06�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 17:25:57 -0700 (PDT), Jerry >> >> <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >On Jun 19, 5:38�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> >> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:11:28 -0700 (PDT), Jerry >> >> >> <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >On Jun 19, 4:53�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> >> >> >> He cannot understand that a car's body represents an absolutely nonrotating >> >> >> frame to its spinning flywheel. >> >> >> >...and CO-MOVING with the center of rotation of the flywheel!!! >> >> >> >AGAIN you inist that every rotating object drags along its own >> >> >frame of absolutely non-rotating space so that the emission point >> >> >of a light pulse remains fixed with respect to the center of >> >> >rotation of the object!!! >> >> >> Hahahhahha! >> >> It doesn't 'drag it along'. >> >> >Let us go back to the clock scenario. >> >> >Scenario A: >> >----------------------------------------------------------------- >> >A Sagnac turntable (NOT ILLUSTRATED) is mounted on the second >> >hand of the clock. >> >> >The clock is moving from right to left at 0.1c >> >> > � � � � � �12 >> > � � � � �9 + 3 >> > � � � � � �6 >> >> > � � � � �12 >> > � � � �9 + 3* �A light pulse * is emitted >> > � � � � �6 >> >> > � � � �12 >> > � � �9 + 3X �The emission point X remains in a fixed location >> > � � � �6 � � with respect to the clock, regardless of the >> > � � � � � � �turntable's rotation. >> >> > � � �12 >> > � �9 + 3X >> > � � �6 >> >> >Scenario B: >> >----------------------------------------------------------------- >> >A Sagnac turntable (NOT ILLUSTRATED) is mounted on the second >> >hand of the clock. >> >> >The clock is moving from left to right at 0.1c >> >> What the hell are you talking about? >> WRT what is it supposd to be moving? > >With respect to YOU, the observer. >Are you claiming that Sagnac devices can't be moved? >Tell that to pilots with inertial guidance systems! They don't 'move' wrt the pilots. They rotate. >> > � � � � � �12 >> > � � � � �9 + 3 >> > � � � � � �6 >> >> > � � � � � � �12 >> > � � � � � �9 + 3* �A light pulse * is emitted >> > � � � � � � �6 >> >> > � � � � � � � �12 >> > � � � � � � �9 + 3X �The emission point X remains in a fixed >> > � � � � � � � �6 � � location with respect to the clock, >> > � � � � � � � � � � �regardless of the turntable's rotation. >> >> > � � � � � � � � �12 >> > � � � � � � � �9 + 3X >> > � � � � � � � � �6 >> >> >----------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >In other words, according to YOUR model, every Sagnac turntable >> >drags along its own absolutely non-rotating frame. The emission >> >point of a light pulse maintains its position with respect to the >> >clock face. >> >> The emission point remains at rest in the inertial frame of the rotation axis . >> What else could it do? > >Dear me, dear me... >Assuming that YOUR strange concept of an "emission point" might >-possibly- correspond to an "event", it COULD represent a unique >position at a unique time in four-space. But it doesn't, does it? >Not if you can drag it around the way that you do. Do you understand what is meant by 'the inertial frame of the rotation axis'? Apparently not.... In fact, do you understand any physics at all? Apparently not.... >I doubt highly that ANYBODY is capable of figuring out what your >"emission point" corresponds to in terms of conventional physics. >Only in your fantasy world does it have meaning. You are a dope....accept it. Study SR's own sagnac ring analysis and see why. >> >According to YOU, there are as many dragged frames in this world >> >as there are Sagnac turntables. >> >> You're raving mad! > >Nope. You are. How many 'inertial frames of the rotation axis' are there? >> >> Such a frame exists. That is what matters. >> >> >Absurd. >> >> Don't you know what an inertial frame is? I think you are still firmly stuck in >> aetherland... > >Nope. It is YOUR model that drags frames around. Every object in the universe drags its own inertial frame around. Does that surprise you? >> >> >You really don't see the total absurdity of such a claim? >> >> >> Then the SR argument here is also absurd: >> > �http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm >> >> >You have never understood SR, and you are unqualified to >> >judge that mathpages article. >> >> The SR diagram is exactly the same as that of BaTh. >> So every claim of yours applies to SR as well as BaTh. > >You're hopelessly lost in fantasyland. You are a senile old brainwashed fool. You know nothing about physics at all. >Jerry Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: eric gisse on 21 Jun 2010 19:26 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: [...] > There is no justification to NOT use Euclidean space. All of 20th and 21st century physics disagrees with you. [...]
From: Don Stockbauer on 21 Jun 2010 22:54
Minkowski Metric. What! Yet another metric system? How many sets of wrenches am I going to have to buy?????? |